Opinion
April 5, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the order are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, on the law, the branches of the motion of the defendant Asad Ali which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claims of the defendants Clarisa Taman and Herzel Taman insofar as asserted against him are denied, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment against the "defendant Clarisa Taman and Herzel Taman on the issue of liability is denied, and the complaint an the cross claims of the defendants Clarisa Taman and Herzel Taman are reinstated insofar as asserted against Asad Ali, and the order dated March 20, 1998, is modified accordingly; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiffs and the defendants Clarisa Taman and Herzel Taman are awarded one bill of costs payable by the respondent Asad Ali.
The appeal and cross appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeals' from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
This action arises from a three-car collision during which the defendant Asad Ali's vehicle, struck the rear end of the plaintiffs' vehicle, which was stopped at a red light, allegedly causing personal injury to the occupants thereof. The vehicle operated by the defendant Herzel Taman struck Ali's vehicle in the rear. There is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs' vehicle was struck in the rear by Ali's vehicle once or twice. The possibility that the plaintiffs' vehicle was. struck twice raises the possibility that Ali was negligent, since his vehicle may not have been propelled into the plaintiffs' vehicle solely as a result of having been struck by the Taman's vehicle ( cf., Zaslavskay v. Twine, 249 A.D.2d 466; Doris v. Calia, 222 A.D.2d 550; Edney v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 178 A.D.2d 398, 399).
Moreover, the possibility of two impacts creates an issue of fact as to whether the actions of Herzel Taman contributed to, any injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Herzel Taman and Clarisa Taman.
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.